The Supreme Court

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:What exactly is the Supreme Court going to do if they get ignored? The same thing they did the last time they were ignored. Nothing at all. Fuck em

President Biden isn't going to do that because he is trying to normalize the US government.

However, yes, Mayberry v Madison was a mistake, and the other branches are not totally bound by it.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

President Biden isn't going to do that because he is trying to normalize the US government.

However, yes, Mayberry v Madison was a mistake, and the other branches are not totally bound by it.

God knows he isn’t going to do anything about the Supreme Court being our unelected overlords. But we’re here talking a bit more theoretically than what’s really going to happen traps.

I think everyone knows that the answer to what is going to happen is “nothing at all and we’ll just keep eating Sam alito’s shit until he mercifully dies while penning a concurrence about how the constitution never forbade a Republican President from putting members of the other party in jail”

Travis of the Cosmos wrote: It’s a farce of an institution that shouldn’t exist

RQA wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote: It’s a farce of an institution that shouldn’t exist

It's existence is mandated by the Constitution.

Leftists run around screaming that our democracy is under assault yet want to undermine the Constitution.  

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court handed down a one-page, 5-4 decision extending the life of a Trump-era border policy known as Title 42, which expels numerous immigrants seeking to enter the United States using an expedited process.

That decision came in Arizona v. Mayorkas, and is typical behavior from the Supreme Court — or, at least, is reflective of this Court’s behavior since a Democrat moved into the White House at the beginning of 2021. It’s the latest example of the Court dragging its feet after a GOP-appointed lower court judge overrides the Biden administration’s policy judgments, often letting that one judge decide the nation’s policy for nearly an entire year.

Trapper Gus wrote:

RQA wrote:

Leftists run around screaming that our democracy is under assault yet want to undermine the Constitution.  

No, they don't.

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

No, they don't.

Really?

The boss leftist on this board just posted that the SCOTUS shouldn't exist.  

Trapper Gus wrote:

"Boss leftist" is an oxymoron.  

Maybe you need a pope to tell you what to do, liberals think for themselves.

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

"Boss leftist" is an oxymoron.  

Maybe you need a pope to tell you what to do, liberals think for themselves.

Let's review Travis.

Leftist?    

Boss?  (meaning moderator)   

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Oh no the big mean liberal said that the unelected oracles that we all cower under shouldn’t exist

RQA wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Oh no the big mean liberal said that the unelected oracles that we all cower under shouldn’t exist

Well those unelected oracles (nominated by the POTUS that we elect and confirmed or not by Senators that we elect) are part of a body mandated by the Constitution.

Thom Hartman wrote:The power to overturn laws passed by Congress and signed by the President was not granted by the Constitution: it was taken by the Court itself onto itself in 1803 in the case Marbury v Madison.

But even that decision, in which the Court struck down part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, didn’t claim to give the Court the power to write or delete policy for the United States.

In fact, Chief Justice John Marshall himself wrote in Marbury:

“The province of the Court is solely to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the Executive or Executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion. Questions, in their nature political or which are, by the Constitution and laws, submitted to the Executive, can never be made in this court.”

Trapper Gus wrote:

The question of what power the court has is ambiguous at best in said Constitution, and has been argued about since before day one of said Constitution being written.

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

The question of what power the court has is ambiguous at best in said Constitution, and has been argued about since before day one of said Constitution being written.

Travis isn't arguing about the role of the SCOTUS he is advocating abolishing it.    An extreme position, for sure.  

Trapper Gus wrote:

He is arguing that the legal discissions which the court is ruling are outside the scope of of their power

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

He is arguing that the legal discissions which the court is ruling are outside the scope of of their power

No, he is advocating that the SCOTUS shouldn't exist.  He couldn't have been more clear.

It’s a farce of an institution that shouldn’t exist

It's a free country (at least for awhile), Travis can argue whatever he wants.    I guess you think that makes your fellow leftist look bad and so you lie about what he said.  

Other than a sematic literalist's cockeyed opinion that is untrue.

Update: “At another point, Liman uses text message exchanges from Kavanaugh’s fellow Yale classmates to suggest that Kavanaugh was worried that sexual assault allegations against him, including Ramirez’s account, might resurface months before Farrow’s article came out and the confirmation hearing. That in itself offers proof that Kavanaugh perjured himself when he claimed to have found out about Ramirez’s accusation only after reading about it in The New Yorker.

Every Supreme Court employee who had access to the draft abortion decision that was leaked prior to its official announcement has signed sworn affidavits promising that they weren’t behind the disclosure.

Every employee except for the nine justices, that is.

The revelation that the justices were not asked or required to sign an affidavit came Friday, a day after the top US court’s Office of the Marshal released a report in which it said its investigators had been unable to identify the culprit behind the leaking of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization to Politico in May.

Trapper Gus wrote:Now the Chief Justice's Wife is an Issue

It is getting to be that you can't look at any of the Republican appointed Justices without finding creepy crawly things under the rocks.

DWags wrote:What does secretly mean? Does this mean he didn’t report a trip to a friends house in the Hamptons? Have they made any connections between him excepting gifts and ruling on a case that affected the person who had given him those gifts?

This looks like a real bad thing here, but sensational headlines are written from both sides. I’m sure there will be deeper dives into all of this. For now it has a really bad luck to it.

DWags wrote:What does secretly mean? Does this mean he didn’t report a trip to a friends house in the Hamptons? Have they made any connections between him excepting gifts and ruling on a case that affected the person who had given him those gifts?

This looks like a real bad thing here, but sensational headlines are written from both sides. I’m sure there will be deeper dives into all of this. For now it has a really bad luck to it.

Trapper Gus wrote:

DWags wrote:What does secretly mean? Does this mean he didn’t report a trip to a friends house in the Hamptons? Have they made any connections between him excepting gifts and ruling on a case that affected the person who had given him those gifts?

This looks like a real bad thing here, but sensational headlines are written from both sides. I’m sure there will be deeper dives into all of this. For now it has a really bad luck to it.

Beyond what he is actually doing there is the lack of a "morals" clause for judges.

With a "morals" clause the appearance of impropriety is enough to be disqualified, regardless of actual impropriety.

Judge's, like Thomas, who ignore this are causing the court's standing to be destroyed and its rulings to be thought to be purely partisan.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:The dude collects nazi memorabilia. They’re trying to claim that he collects it to remind him of things that he hates.

It makes sense, it’s the same reason that turtleneck’s basement is adorned with signed pictures, helmets, and the like of bo scembechler, Tom Brady, Charles Woodson, and fab five memorabilia. It’s because he hates them so much.

kingstonlake wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:The dude collects nazi memorabilia. They’re trying to claim that he collects it to remind him of things that he hates.

It makes sense, it’s the same reason that turtleneck’s basement is adorned with signed pictures, helmets, and the like of bo scembechler, Tom Brady, Charles Woodson, and fab five memorabilia. It’s because he hates them so much.

Good to know if my wife ever finds my porn collection.

Clarence Thomas has, in his three decades on SCOTUS, performed three judicial functions: First, he is a reliable conservative vote who has rarely if ever swung to join a liberal foursome. Second, he has avoided anything remotely resembling original and persuasive legal writing that might ever be used by anyone in lower courts as precedent in any gray area of Constitutional law. And third, once he had confirmed his title as the dumbest reactionary on the Court in the Twentieth Century, he graciously stepped aside to allow Samuel Alito to claim that honor for the Twenty-First.

Clarence Thomas was a troglodyte long before people started paying his wife to cheer him on. In fact, he is quite possibly the most consistent jurist in the history of the Court: he always votes for the cops against the suspect, for the wealthy against the employee, for the Republican political machine against the disenfranchised voter, and for the church against taxpayers who don’t want to support parochial schools. (About the only surprise to come from three decades of Justice Thomas’s black-and-white judicial worldview is that he proves that there really is such a thing as antidisestablishmentarianism.)

Trapper Gus wrote:https://gregolear.substack.com/p/clarence-thomas-and-other-crow-holdings

A detailed look at what has been ongoing with Thomas, the following really sums up his role as a Justice.

Clarence Thomas has, in his three decades on SCOTUS, performed three judicial functions: First, he is a reliable conservative vote who has rarely if ever swung to join a liberal foursome. Second, he has avoided anything remotely resembling original and persuasive legal writing that might ever be used by anyone in lower courts as precedent in any gray area of Constitutional law. And third, once he had confirmed his title as the dumbest reactionary on the Court in the Twentieth Century, he graciously stepped aside to allow Samuel Alito to claim that honor for the Twenty-First.

Clarence Thomas was a troglodyte long before people started paying his wife to cheer him on. In fact, he is quite possibly the most consistent jurist in the history of the Court: he always votes for the cops against the suspect, for the wealthy against the employee, for the Republican political machine against the disenfranchised voter, and for the church against taxpayers who don’t want to support parochial schools. (About the only surprise to come from three decades of Justice Thomas’s black-and-white judicial worldview is that he proves that there really is such a thing as antidisestablishmentarianism.)

Trapper Gus wrote:https://gregolear.substack.com/p/clarence-thomas-and-other-crow-holdings

A detailed look at what has been ongoing with Thomas, the following really sums up his role as a Justice.

Clarence Thomas has, in his three decades on SCOTUS, performed three judicial functions: First, he is a reliable conservative vote who has rarely if ever swung to join a liberal foursome. Second, he has avoided anything remotely resembling original and persuasive legal writing that might ever be used by anyone in lower courts as precedent in any gray area of Constitutional law. And third, once he had confirmed his title as the dumbest reactionary on the Court in the Twentieth Century, he graciously stepped aside to allow Samuel Alito to claim that honor for the Twenty-First.

Clarence Thomas was a troglodyte long before people started paying his wife to cheer him on. In fact, he is quite possibly the most consistent jurist in the history of the Court: he always votes for the cops against the suspect, for the wealthy against the employee, for the Republican political machine against the disenfranchised voter, and for the church against taxpayers who don’t want to support parochial schools. (About the only surprise to come from three decades of Justice Thomas’s black-and-white judicial worldview is that he proves that there really is such a thing as antidisestablishmentarianism.)